Category: Christendom


Integration

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Christendom, Church Life, Jesus is Lord, New Covenant, Our Covenant With God, Spiritual Life by rossrohde — 6 Comments
February 14, 2013

How different is this, practically different...

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.  Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.  For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope (Gal. 5:1-5).

What is Paul saying here? Is this merely about circumcision or is there a deeper principle in what Paul is saying? I believe there is a deeper principle, which is this. Pick your covenant. Live by the old covenant of the law, which is slavery, or live fully in the new covenant of the Spirit, which is freedom. You can’t have it both ways. To choose to take one part of the old covenant is to reject Christ and at that point you are required to obey the whole old covenant of the law.

Now that we Christians have twenty centuries under our belts I believe we need to ask that question again. Which covenant are we going to live in? Specifically, are we going to have an integrated faith which revolves around Jesus as Lord and living in a new covenant arrangement with Him or are we going to live like we are in the old covenant? If we are going to live in the new covenant then everything we do, say, believe and practice should be an integral whole. Let me state this as a question. Is your theology (what we believe about God), ecclesiology (the way we live the gathering of believers), missiology (the way we do Kingdom ministry), and praxis (the way we live life) seamlessly focused on the centrality of Jesus the Lord and His new covenant relationship with us, or does it go back to old covenant practice? If it does, it will not only reflect the theology of the Bible, it will reflect the practice of Jesus, his disciples and the early Church as reflected in Acts and the Epistles.

Before you answer that question let me contrast these issues in the old covenant and the new covenant.

...from this...

Theology: in the old covenant believers stuck to the letter of the law as it was written. In their own power they tried to follow the rules. In the new covenant our behavior is based on the law that is written in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (see. Heb. 8:7-13, specifically vs. 10). This will reflect God’s written word, but it is initiated by the Spirit, not human will.

Ecclesiology: in the old covenant the gathering of God’s people was focused on the temple (a building). All worship and ministry was directed by men (the Aaronic priesthood). In the new covenant no ministry in specific buildings is mentioned or prescribed because the temple of the Holy Spirit is the human body and heart. Therefore when God’s people gather (anywhere) they can allow Jesus the Lord himself to lead them. While there is human participation, leadership belongs to Jesus the Lord. There is no special building and no clergy class.

Missiology: In the old covenant all ministry was done by men and led by men. The beauty of Israel was intended to draw the nations to God who resided in the temple. It was a “bring them in” mentality. In the new covenant Jesus said go. All of us have the Holy Spirit leading us from inside of our hearts and minds (Heb. 8:10 again). So Jesus the Lord leads us individually and corporately outward. Men do not coordinate this but they do cooperate through obedience.

Praxis: In the old covenant the leading of the Holy Spirit was rare (occasionally through some prophets and kings) and inconsistent. The Spirit came and left. Consequently it was up to men to follow the letter of the law in their own power, by their own will. In the new covenant the Spirit resides in our hearts and minds. Our bodies therefore become the new temple and the Christian leads a holy life by His power and direction. And this will reflect the behavior of godly people in the New Testament.

Both old covenant and new covenant life were integrated and consistent. In the old covenant godly people tried their best to follow the letter of the law in what they believed about God (theology), how they gathered in the temple (ecclesiology), how they did ministry (missiology), and how they lived. This was human led and human powered, but done to please God.

In the new covenant the Holy Spirit resides in us and leads from within. Jesus leads humans to cooperate and obey Him. If this leading is truly from Him it will never negate His written word. So our theology is first and foremost led by the Spirit but discerned by the written word (they won’t conflict). New covenant ecclesiology needs no building, it just needs Spirit filled believers to gather. It also needs no special leader because when they gather Jesus the Lord leads. Ministry is led by the Spirit of Jesus and reflects the missionary behavior we see in the Bible which was also led by the Spirit of Jesus. Our behavior (praxis) is led by the Spirit from within, not laws, rules or even Scriptural principles, as good as they are (read Rom. 7). In fact the written word of God itself says, the letter kills but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor. 3:6).

...or this?

So old covenant life was integrated in every way. It was human led but trying desperately to please God. It needed a written code to follow by human effort. It needed a special building where men could worship God in their own effort. It needed special human leaders who would spiritually lead others (priests) by their own effort. Ministry was based on humans, in their own effort, behaving according to the written code which would draw people in. Behavior that pleased God was strictly an act of the human will. In the same way, new covenant behavior is all about following the Spirit of Jesus the Lord who lives in our bodies and speaks to our hearts and minds. So theology, ecclesiology, missiology and praxis are all led by the Spirit of Jesus from within. That’s why “Jesus is Lord” is not just a doctrine of theology, it is a way of life. Jesus leads everything. For that reason we don’t need a special building, special rules, special leadership, great human developed strategies and a life of trying hard to follow the principles of the Bible. All of this is lead by Jesus from within. We just cooperate and obey.

Pick a question and respond:

  • Is your theology, ecclesiology, missiology and praxis old covenant, new covenant or a mixed bag?
  • Have you ever seen a Christian building (commonly but erroneously called a church) named something like “Temple” Baptist? Does that seem as incongruous to you as it does to me?
  • What’s the practical difference between an old covenant priest and a Christian priest, minister or pastor? How does that square with the new covenant?
  • What happens when our theology, ecclesiology, missiology, and praxis are a mixed bag of old covenant and new? Does it make sense to say we follow the Spirit (new covenant) and then talk about our goals and objectives we’ve developed? Does it make sense to say our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit yet meet in temple like buildings and have a Christian priesthood? Does it really make sense to say “I live by biblical principles,” and then say Jesus is Lord?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

How Dare You?

Filed Under: Christendom, Spiritual Life by rossrohde — 5 Comments
January 10, 2013

How dare you rock the boat?

A good friend of mine made an observation on his blog, “I long to see God’s house restored to its former glory. Imagine if the church gave 90% of its offerings to the poor, instead of to buildings, salaries and programs. That kind of love could change the world. ‘To help the poor is to honor God.’ Proverbs 14:31.” Frankly it’s a great statement and a worthwhile longing. So, what’s the problem? The problem is that my friend risked negative feedback from people who could be offended by this statement. Specifically he risked offending traditional clergy who would take offense at the implications of observing that we put about 90% of our offerings toward buildings, salary and programs and consequently very little ends up helping the poor.

Does this kind of offense from questioning the status quo actually happen? Of course it does; it happens all the time. In essence those who respond with accusations and offense are asking “How dare you?” How dare you make uncomfortable observations? How dare you question the status quo? How dare you rock the boat? Usually, but not always, this negative feedback comes from traditional clergy.

I’d like to make some observations about the reality behind the negative response to legitimate observations to the brokenness of our current church situation. First, people can respond negatively to accurate observations for a number of reasons. Perhaps they can’t question the status quo in their own minds so they can imagine why anyone else should do what to them seems like very strange behavior. Maybe the way things currently are benefits them in some way, so to question it would entail risk for them. Another reason would be that they try to project motive on the person who makes uncomfortable observations. They only motivations they can come up with are being judgmental, angry or bitter. What strikes me as odd is that the response is rarely to check out the veracity of the observations. That happens, but it is much more common for people to feel threatened.

This brings me to another issue; how people (particularly clergy) respond when they hear accurate observations to the status quo. The rarest response is that the hearer listens to what has been said, realizes that the observations are correct and starts to deal with the new reality.[1] Another response, which is nearly as rare; they recognize the truth of the statements but just don’t want to risk the fallout from dealing with the status quo. I actually know a pastor who is quite frank about this. The way things are disturbs him but he realizes that he actually has no marketable skills to support his family should he leave his paid position.

The most common response is to kill the messenger. This is done by questioning the motives of the person who has brought up the uncomfortable truth. Most commonly the accusations are of being judgmental, angry or bitter. A number of times I’ve had someone say, “You must have really been hurt by some person or situation in the past.”[2] The implication is that the observations have no basis in truth, it is just coming out of some dark place in my own soul. I suspect that people often try to kill the messenger because they don’t want to deal with the reality. But, the truth is that I can’t completely know their motivations any more than they can discern mine.

The real question is how do we deal with this? Do we stop speaking out? Do we just go along with the broken status quo even when we know that it not only doesn’t match Scripture, it is often exactly the opposite of what the Scripture says? Do we avoid saying anything to make sure no one’s feelings are hurt? I don’t think so. I think we speak the truth in love. We do need to make sure that anger and bitterness hasn’t crept into our hearts. But we still say what needs to be said. Imagine if the reformers had not spoken about the problems of the Church in the 1500’s. Further we don’t return evil of evil. We don’t respond by accusing them or speaking as if we can clearly see their wrong motives. We can’t. So we turn the other cheek but continue to speak the truth in love.

Pick a question and respond:

  • Have you ever spoken out about the problems you see and been accused of being judgmental, angry or bitter? Were you?
  • Is it possible to be angry, judgmental or bitter but still see problems? What do you think should be our response if we realize this about ourselves?
  • What are the key problems you see in the status quo of the Church? What do you think should be done about it? What does this tell you about yourself, in other words, why does this bother you?
  • Does hearing people talk about the problems in the current Christian status quo bother you? What does this tell you about yourself? Why does this bother you?

[1] While this is a rare response, there is a corresponding truth, many people who have stepped out of the institutional status quo are actually ex-clergy; pastors, youth leaders, worship leaders or missionaries. I believe this is because questioning the status quo is becoming very common nowadays and the clergy are the people who are in a position to see the problems most clearly.

[2] Have I been hurt in the past? Sure, I know very few people who haven’t been hurt by the way things currently are. But what does that tell you about the way things currently are? Was the Church designed by God to hurt people?

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Boring!

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Church History, Church Life, Meeting Together, Organic Church, Spiritual Life, Supernaturalism by rossrohde — 4 Comments
December 10, 2012

Church doesn't have to be this way.

I didn’t grow up in a particularly religious family. But, like most kids growing up in the 1960’s my family had a denominational orientation and we did go to church about eight or ten times a year. Here’s what I remember from those occasions. It was boring; not just a little boring, squirm in your seat and wish you were anywhere else boring. It was always a relief to wake up Sunday morning and see that we weren’t getting spiffed up to go to church. It is still a bit surprising to me that I ever came to Christ. Probably the saving grace was that when my sister shared the Gospel with me she didn’t tie it to church attendance, or I probably would have rejected it.

How did church get that boring? I think that’s a good question even if I did ask it rhetorically. Church, as it was originally practiced wasn’t boring at all. It was so wonderful that the early Christians often met daily. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 5:42). Granted, that can mean that they met daily or that there were some meetings going on somewhere every day. Most likely it is a bit of both, dedicated groups met often and there were groups meeting every day. But the point is that early Christians wanted to meet, they couldn’t wait. So what were they doing that was wonderful but is missing in many church meetings nowadays? And, a second question, what should we do about it?

First, what were they doing that we often aren’t? What’s missing? I think they were actually encountering Jesus in their midst. They weren’t doing some sort of planned, set piece, ritualized church service. They were doing something that was both spontaneous and a real encounter with Jesus. Let’s look at the only description of a church gathering found in the entire New Testament.

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. (I Cor. 14:26-33)

This was spontaneous, not planned. There was very little or no prep time for this. That’s because no one besides Jesus was leading it. One could get their soul ready for this, but beyond that, planning an order of service is strange beyond words in this type of context. Second, it was an actual encounter with the living God, while gathered together among friends. How cool is that? This is describing a meeting of people where God is giving revelation, leading people giving instruction, causing people to speak in tongues and interpret tongues. There are prophecies (God telling the group something through a person). In fact, the information from God is coming so fast and thick that Paul has to give instructions on how those receiving information from God will need to wait their turn so that it doesn’t become a free for all. Wouldn’t you want to participate in that? I’d love it…and do love it when it happens among my friends and me.

So, what should we do about it (my second question)? Well, let me say first, in my opinion we shouldn’t try to avoid the inescapable boredom of a church service by turning it into a performance. That will avoid the boredom but won’t in any way guarantee an encounter with God. Here’s what I think we should do. Let’s just do what the early Christians did; the simpler the better. The more spontaneous, the better. The more Jesus controlled and the less people controlled, the better. I’ve been involved with this now many times since I’ve become a more “organic” Christian. These encounters are rich, spiritual and spur me on to love and good deeds. But there is one thing they are not; they are not boring.

Pick a question and respond:

  • How do you think church got so boring? What is the most boring part of a typical church service for you?
  • What do you think we should do about it? I’ve given my solution; do you have a better one?
  • Do you think turning a church service into a performance makes the situation better? Is the goal of going to church being entertained?
  • If you don’t think being entertained is the goal of going to church, what is?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

It’s the Wrong Question

Filed Under: Organic Church, Recommended Books, Spiritual Life, The Viral Jesus Book, Worldview by rossrohde — Leave a comment
December 7, 2012

There is more than one way to think about issues.

Frankly I am often distressed by the poor quality of discussion that goes on in the Western Christian world. This poor quality of discussion stems from the poor quality of thinking. Let me give you an example. Is the Church as we have always known it, often called the institutional church,[1] broken and problematic or is it the Bride of Christ which needs to be respected and loved? That’s not a small or unimportant question. After all, if the institutional church is broken and problematic it needs to be confronted, addressed and changed. On the other hand, if it is the Bride of Christ, we who are Christians outside of this expression of Christianity, need to love and respect her. Both require lived out action. So which is it, a problem or a beloved Bride? It’s the wrong question.

There are two important statements about questions we need to understand if we are ever to get to the bottom of this particular issue. Statement #1: You never get an answer to a question you don’t ask. Statement #2: You never get the right answer to the wrong question. In this case the question is worthy of asking (we need the answer to this question), but it is the wrong question. I know it sounds like I’m not making sense so bear with me. This question needs to be asked (it is a worthy question). But it is asked in such a poor way that we will never find the answers we are looking for if we ask the question in this way  (it’s the wrong question).

The problem stems from the way the question is formulated, which in turn rises from poor quality of thinking, which can lead to bad behavior. The question is formulated as an either/or proposition. Is it this or is it that? This kind of thinking is called dualism or dichotomistic thinking. Everything in this way of thinking is one or the other, this or that, black or white, good or bad. It is a very useful tool if we are dealing with physics, chemistry or biology. However, when we are dealing with other situations, such as human behavior or spirituality; thinking in this way becomes highly problematic. A group of human individuals rarely act in one way or the other. They will most likely respond in a variety of ways that reflect their values, culture, experience or the particular situation. What inspires one person to pray will inspire another individual to cower in fear. One person can do a particular behavior for noble reasons. Another person can do the exact same behavior with evil motives and intent.

When we are dealing with the behavior of the “institutional church” we are actually dealing with a whole lot of individuals and God. Humans don’t always do the same thing in similar situations, neither does God. Yes, I know God is never changing, with no shifting of shadow (James 1:17). But God does make decisions based on the circumstance. For example, both murder and adultery are against God’s law, worthy of death, as expressed in the Old Testament. Yet God forgave King David of both and didn’t require his life.

So instead of asking: The institutional Church: good or bad; worthy of change or respect? We should ask how does God want us to behave toward a system that is unbiblical and causes serious problems yet is filled with people God loves and is a system that God continues to use and bless despite its problems? This may be a more complex question but because it is framed in the reality of actual human behavior and the way God acts, it will lead to better and more carefully nuanced behavior.

So let me state it plainly. The church as we have always known it is structured in ways that are unbiblical and even contra biblical. This causes serious problems for people and for the Kingdom of God. These issues should be addressed…graciously.

There are better ways of handling differences of opinion or perspective.

At the same time, the institutional church is the Bride of Christ. He still loves it and so should I. He still uses it, so I should be willing to work along side of it, perhaps even in it, if God so chooses. I should be aware that different individuals within this structure can do the same sorts of behavior, some with noble intentions and others with wrong motive. So I need God given discernment as to how I respond or if I respond at all. Are all pastors, priests, vicars and bishops control freaks with evil intentions? Hardly. Are a few? Yep. Can God still call people to the institutional pastorate? Yep. So I need to tread lightly and with discernment when I address issues and not paint with too broad of brush. Nevertheless, the problems associated with institutional leadership within the Bride of Christ should be addressed, honestly, clearly, graciously and with discernment.

I get quite a bit of flack for some of the issues I addressed in Viral Jesus, not necessarily for the way I addressed them but that I brought up the issues at all. While that is not always pleasant, I’m encouraged that most who criticize me are merely angry because I brought up the issues, or that I come to conclusions they don’t agree with, not because I did it harshly. And, those who think I did so with evil intent (there are a few) do so by placing motives in my heart that actually aren’t there.

Pick a question and respond:

  • Do you believe that we can ask good questions in ways that give us wrong answers?
  • Do you think we should be angry at the institutional church and those who are in it because of its problems? Would you want to be treated that way? Do you think your theology and behavior is absolutely perfect and above reproach?
  • Do you believe that we should avoid fellowship with those with whom we strongly disagree about issues of faith or ecclesiology?
  • Do you believe every difference needs to be discussed and confronted?

[1] A term I don’t particularly like because it is so commonly used by some house church people as a pejorative term. It is often used as a bludgeon not merely a description.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Refugees and Pioneers

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Christendom, Organic Church, Spiritual Life by rossrohde — 6 Comments
October 19, 2012

Are we acting like pioneers or refugees?

A friend of mine recently sent me some observations from one of his friends about people who are currently leaving church as we have always known it. These observations are not original with me, but they are insightful and I thought I’d share them.

In the entire Western world people are leaving Christianity as we have always known it. Call it what you will, congregational church, institutional church or legacy church. Whatever it is called, this expression of Christianity in the West is hemorrhaging. But why are so many folks leaving?

Refugees

The first type of people who are leaving are refugees. Just like folks crossing the border into Turkey from Syria; these people are leaving an unsafe environment. They are seeking to preserve their spiritual life from a hostile situation. This could be from abusive leadership, lack of ability to participate and be respected, lack of deep relationships or a sense of a spiritually stifling environment. Their motivation is avoidance of threat.

While they are seeking safety, they aren’t necessarily seeking something new and better. They don’t have a vision for making the Church better as much as they just don’t want to get hurt anymore. For such people, if the situation changed, a new leader or more exciting worship for example, they just might go back. And, because they have no vision for the future, they have a low tolerance for the difficulties and trials that come with building something new. This category comprises the vast majority of people leaving institutional Christianity today.

Pioneers

But there is also a different kind of person leaving church as we have known it. These are folks with a vision of the future. They have an agenda to make something new and better. Such folks have an entrepreneurial drive to work with God to build the Kingdom of God. They long to see the Church become effective again in advancing into new and even hostile territory. They long to move forward to a way of doing church that builds true community and where everyone can participate based on their unique God given design.

While they can see the problems with what they left, their focus is on the good that can be instead of the bad that was. Therefore they can still be gracious to what they left. Such people are patient with the numerous difficulties of building something new. They are not put off by the mistakes others make or they themselves make. They assume that part of building something no one has seen before is false starts, risks and failure. They see such things as an opportunity to learn, not a difficulty to complain about. These folks are not Lot’s family fleeing the burning cities; they are Abraham seeking the Promised Land.

Let’s Be Pioneers, Not Mere Refugees

While we can and should be compassionate for the pain and struggle of refugees, we need to realize there is a Promised Land. The current struggles and difficulties of the institutional church are not merely a difficulty to tolerate or flee; they are an opportunity for the Kingdom. Instead of looking backwards in anger, we need to look forwards toward the promise. God is doing something new in our time through organic church. We are in the very beginning phases in the West.[1] We are making mistakes, but we are learning from our mistakes and the Kingdom goes forward. My message to my refugee brethren is this. We know you are hurt and we long to see Jesus heal your wounds. But there is a Promised Land. Come be pioneers with us. We should have the same attitude Paul had towards the ongoing development of his life:

Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil 3:12-14 NASB).

Pick a question and respond:

  • Is it easy to discern a refugee from a Pioneer? How would you do that?
  • How can pioneers be helpful in healing the wounds of refugees?
  • What would be your suggestions on how to transform from a refugee to a pioneer?
  • As pioneers, what should our attitude be towards the churches we left? How can we have constructive relationships with them to work towards the building of God’s Kingdom?

[1] Places like China and India are far ahead of us. We need to be humble and learn from them.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Why I Plant Organic Churches

Filed Under: Church Planting, House Church, Organic Church, Simple Church, Spiritual Life, Worldview by rossrohde — 8 Comments
September 28, 2012

By organic church I mean something like this.

There are lots of kinds of churches. Besides the dozens if not hundreds of denominations we could name, each with its own way of doing things, there are lots of different models out there. There are liturgical “high worship” churches, like the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, Anglican and Episcopalian churches. There are the Modernism movement (mostly called liberal by their theological foes). There are charismatic churches, Pentecostal churches, cessationist churches, evangelical churches and fundamentalist churches. There are seeker friendly churches and there are Gen-X churches. I could go on and probably so could you. So, why did I end up focused on organic churches? It’s a good question.

I was a missionary is Spain. As an experienced missiological researcher, I was asked to answer a simple set of questions for the Evangelical churches in Spain: why, since we have such a lovely Gospel, are Spaniards rejecting us? After all, we preach grace and forgiveness, love and acceptance and peace with a powerful yet loving God. If you believe in God, which most Spaniards still do, why wouldn’t you want “some of that?” Why isn’t what we are preaching considered “good news?”

So, I started using all my missiological/anthropological/sociological research tools. And, to cut a very long story short, here’s what my helpers and I came up with. Evangelicalism is an expression of Christianity that reflects the Enlightenment worldview. Spaniards skipped the Enlightenment. They went straight from the Ancient worldview[1] to postmodernism. That happened from the 1970’s to the 1990’s. Evangelicalism (and Liberalism, Pentecostalism, etc. etc.) expressed itself culturally in Enlightenment ways. That didn’t work for people with an Ancient worldview or a postmodern worldview. We weren’t speaking to them in their cultural language so the way we expressed ourselves sounded like static on the radio to them.

That’s fine for Spain but here’s the thing…the entire Western world is already postmodern. That includes the United States and Europe. You can hate postmodernism, complain about it, fight it, refuse to participate, do what you want, but in doing so you will choose not to communicate with postmoderns.

My next research step was to find out what was working among postmoderns. And I found out there were four kinds of churches that worked in certain ways. Some postmoderns long for mystery, art and pageantry in religious expression. For these folk (a small but significant number) liturgical “high worship” churches will meet their needs. For baby boomers (the generation stuck between high Modernism/Enlightenment and postmodernity, seeker churches can work; at least those boomers who are not still stuck back in Modernism. For other postmodern seekers there are Gen-X churches, with the art, the candles, the rock music and the hip preacher dressed in latest trendy clothes speaking from a stool instead of a pulpit. But with all of these models there is one problem. The biggest obstacle for postmoderns with religion is institutionalism; and all of these models are highly institutional. Some cool Gen-X churches can be just as domineering and controlling as the Catholic Church. In fact, there has been a recent scandal about this very thing.

So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with new generations of people (all those born since the baby boomers) who, as postmoderns, tend to be spiritual seekers but who also strongly tend to distrust institutions. So, with these people we’ve been offering institutional religious structures and it hasn’t been working too well. This is the sociological reason the Church is dying in the West. But, through my research I found out about organic/simple/house churches which keep all the biblical spirituality and faithfulness to the Bible but skip the institutional part, which isn’t biblical anyway.

So, that’s the technical answer to why I plant organic churches, but that’s really only part of the answer, and actually not the most important part. Once I started practicing organic Christianity I found a much deeper relationship with Christ and a joyous freedom I’d never experienced in more than 30 years of Christian leadership. But, that’s another story.

Pick a question and respond:

  • Do you think railing against postmodernism is going to change many postmodern’s minds? Do you think offering them something they find offensive is a good solution?
  • If we choose to be postmodern sensitive in the way we minister and live, does it mean we buy all of the values of postmodernism? Is it possible to be postmodern sensitive yet live a biblical lifestyle?
  • Have you ever had an experience like mine, God using something you no longer value much (in my case research) to take you to a new place in your spiritual life?
  • Do you think the technical part of my story (research/sociology) or the spiritual side of my story (deeper relationship with Christ and joyous freedom) would be more persuasive for you?

[1] I’m talking about worldview (the way people see the world) not technology. Spaniards had modern technology but not a Modern (also called Enlightenment) worldview.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Afraid of the Holy Spirit

Filed Under: Recommended Books, Spiritual Life, The Viral Jesus Book, Worldview by rossrohde — 18 Comments
July 13, 2012

This book helped in understanding the difference between being indwelt and filled by the Spirit.

My spiritual formation was in a context were I was trained to be afraid of the Holy Spirit. We would have never actually put it in those terms, because it would sound bad; but our actions and actual words either avoided the Holy Spirit or taught us to avoid potential contact with him. This context was called cessationism, which is a theological theory which states that all miraculous experiences with the Holy Spirit ended either at the death of the last of apostles[1] or at the completion of the cannon of Scripture. So somewhere between about the year 100 AD and the Second Council of Carthage in 419 the miraculous stopped. You’ll have to pick a more specific date yourself in this gap of about 320 years. In my book Viral Jesus I actually had an appendix about cessationism because I don’t believe we can see a viral movement of the Gospel if we are working within the framework of cessationism.

But my real problem wasn’t even that I was taught to avoid the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, with a special fear and loathing for the gift of tongues, but that the Holy Spirit himself seemed to be pretty much off limits for conversation. Let me give you an example. I went to a very fine Bible college.[2] We even had a required course called God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Here’s what I learned about the Holy Spirit in that course: The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. Next question?

Here’s the problem with the Holy Spirit. He is experiential. And we were trained that we could not get good theology from our experiences; and good theology is all that counts. Therefore any experience one had with the Holy Spirit was suspect and probably either worked up in the mind of the person having the experience or was demonic in nature. I know that’s not even a logical syllogism, but that’s how our thinking went. And yes, I’ve heard many times that what my Pentecostal or charismatic friends would state as experiences with the Holy Spirit were actually demonic. These of course would be things like speaking in tongues, which is obviously bad, but also prophecy and especially anything that would be socially inappropriate like being slain in the Spirit or even trembling.

How do we actually live and work in the power of the Spirit?

The problem with this thinking is the Bible. The Holy Spirit ends up being extremely experiential in the Bible. Jesus didn’t tell us to avoid Him but to look with wondrous anticipation for him. And when he came it would involve actual experiential power which led to Kingdom work being done. Oh, this reminds me of something else I was taught. We can get no theology from the book of Acts because it is an historical book. Who makes up these rules? I could go on and on with verse references but I won’t. Here’s a little exercise I’d suggest for the curious. Look up all the references to the Spirit in the New Testament. Ask yourself how experiential that is.

I became frustrated because what I was actually seeing and experiencing on the mission field had no actual correlation to what I had been taught. I ended up seeing demonic possession. I heard precise, accurate prophecy that lead to significant ministry. I saw people healed. I experienced miracles…real miracles that would have made it into the book of Acts or the gospels. So I took a four credit independent study post graduate course to focus my thinking. Was cessationism real or just an incorrect theological theory? The appendix I have in the back of Viral Jesus is a synopsis of the paper I wrote after studying it from a Biblical, theological, hermeneutical, historical and sociological basis. But my synopsis is amateurish compared to Dr. Stephen Crosby’s Your Empowered Inheritance NOW! A Critique of Cessationism. If you want a thorough scholarly understanding of the issue buy Crosby’s book.

Here are two further books that have helped me actually experience the goodness of the Holy Spirit as he is actually described in the New Testament. The first is Experiencing the Spirit: Developing Relationship with the Holy Spirit by Robert Heidler. Heidler is a pastor and graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. He helped me finally understand the difference between being indwelt by the Spirit and being “filled” with the Spirit and why both are essential to spiritual life and ministry.

The second book is Miracle Work: A Down-To-Earth Guide for Supernatural People by Jordan Seng. Seng explains the dynamics of spiritual power and how to learn to minister in it. Of particular help to me was his “power equation” on page 51: Authority + Gifting + Faith + Consecration = Power. If you want to know what that actually means you are going to have to read the book. But it clearly lays out how Holy Spirit power works and how we can live and minister in it. I would suggest reading Heidler before Seng. If you read Seng without understanding what Heidler explains, you might end up frustrated and confused.

Pick a question and respond:

  • Why do you think those who come from my spiritual background are so shy about the Holy Spirit?
  • What part do you think the excesses of some Pentecostals and charismatics have played in other Christians being shy about the Holy Spirit?
  • Do you agree that experience plays no part in our understanding of theology? Do you think the Book of Acts is off limits as a source of theological insight?
  • What do you think the difference between being indwelt and filled with the Holy Spirit is? Do you think they are the same thing?

[1] By “apostles” cessationists mean the twelve Jesus trained…and Paul. They don’t have room for apostles apart from those, even though the Bible itself mentions them.

[2] I’m very grateful for all I learned there, it just wasn’t all I needed to learn.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Hearers or Doers

Filed Under: Christendom, Discipleship, Evangelism, Meeting Together, New Covenant, Spiritual Life, Viral Christianity by rossrohde — Leave a comment
June 6, 2012

Some people merely listen but...

Ask yourself a question: are most of the Christians you know merely hearers of the word of God or do they actually do what it says? I am, of course, referring to James 1:22, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” Here’s the passage in context. This isn’t necessarily a black and white issue. There are different levels of “doing.” Let me give you a few.

Some people assume that if they go to church weekly and are part of the Christian or their church’s sub-culture they are doers. Frankly, I’d call that a mere hearer of the word. Others feel that if they listen to sermons and have a vague Christian spirituality, trying to be nice people, that they are doers of the word. Is that really “doing what it says?” Others look at all the Biblical commandments and use this as a pattern for their moral life. Is that being a doer of the word or just being legalistic? Some discuss, church life, doctrine and Bible verse with other Christians all the time. Others try to implement biblical principles into their life, such as following Jesus’ statement to “love as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34). Have we gotten there yet? Still others see that living the word is a matter of the Spirit living in their lives, speaking the law into their hearts and minds, then giving them the will and power to live the life God wants from them? Finally some are even more intentional. When they read a Bible passage, they actually ask God how they can put what has been read into immediate practice, then they go out and do it under God’s guidance, control and power.

So, where do you and I fit in this continuum? Are we really hearers or are we doers? This has all come to mind for me because I am discipling four men I have led to the Lord in a small group. I am trying out a simple program called Discovery Bible Study, by David Watson. In that study the last of three simple steps is to write “I will” statements. Here’s the idea. We study the Bible together, then we individually write three I will statements on how I personally am going to actually put what I’ve learned into immediate practice. Then we come back the next time and report to each other about the experience. It is pretty simple in concept, not so easy to actually do.

...others actually put what they hear into practice.

Last week was the first week we actually gathered to do this together. Three of the men were guys I’ve led to the Lord over the last three years. One of the guys was someone I led to the Lord two weeks ago. While I’ve been discipling the first three for awhile, they have also become involved in various traditional churches. I found it interesting the difference in response between the new Christian and those who have more experience.

Vitorio wanted to do the study and wanted to do the “I will statements” but struggled a bit on how to come up with ideas. The other guys gave him suggestions and he settled on his three “I will” statements and agreed to put them into action this week. He also commented that his other church experiences never actually expected him to do something with what he had just learned.

Cesar came up with two “I will” statements right away. He asked for help to come up with a third. At one point he was actually in tears as he described how much he wanted to learn how to actually follow Jesus more effectively.

Toño, actually refused to do “I will” statements. First he said he couldn’t think of anything. I told him we’d go to others and come back to him later. He still refused; then offered that he’d send me some “I will” statements on Facebook later. I suggested that he should participate and be held accountable just like everyone else. He again refused and said he couldn’t be at the study next week but would come in two weeks.

Then there was Edwin, the new Christian. Edwin embraced the idea with enthusiasm and vigor. In the study he kept saying, “Hey guys, this is about living, not just talking about the Bible.” He had no trouble coming up with “I will” statements and couldn’t wait to get started. When I dropped him off at his house later he thanked me for sharing the gospel with him and for teaching him how to follow God.

Pick a question and respond:

  • How much of a hearer and how much of a doer are you when it comes to living the word of God?
  • Can you think of a way to be a more intentional doer? Do you think God could help you with that?
  • What did you notice and/or learn from the different responses of my friends?
  • What would you do about Toño?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

How to Kill a Viral Jesus Movement

Filed Under: Christendom, Church History, Church Life, Jesus is Lord, Meeting Together, New Covenant, Spiritual Life, Supernaturalism, The Viral Jesus Book, Viral Christianity by rossrohde — 3 Comments
April 13, 2012

It's great while it lasts. We need to learn to not take control from Jesus so they do last.

When viral Jesus movements (also called revivals) happen they are exciting, powerful and fruitful. They can also be surprisingly fragile. God begins many of these but they are killed because of inappropriate human activity. I want to discuss this activity so that none of us are ever a part of killing a movement of God.

The Wrong Wineskins

In my book Viral Jesus I note that what I call partial Jesus movements normally last twenty years or less. By partial Jesus movements I am referring to a movement of the Spirit (revival) that gets snuffed too early. I would include in this list the 1st Great Awakening, the 2nd Great Awakening, The Moravian movement, the Welsh revivals, the Azusa Street Revival…I could go on. Here’s the sad point, we have not seen a single viral Jesus movement go for more than about twenty years between the Edict of Milan in 313 AD and the current viral Jesus movement in China in 1949. That’s 1,636 years. Let me be clear, a number of these movements sparked significant lasting change. Both the 2nd Great Awakening and the Azusa Street Revival gave birth to current denominations. But the lasting power and presence of the Holy Spirit was gone, as was the rapid in gathering of souls. The Assemblies of God denomination was born out of Azusa Street. Is the average Assemblies church having a rapid in gathering of souls? Is there a pervasive holiness among members that is any different than say a Baptist church? The revival had long lasting effects but the revival itself has gone.

In contrast, the first viral Jesus movement, the early Church lasted about 280 years. Honestly it was losing its power before the Edict of Milan but that was the largest and last nail in the coffin. The viral Jesus movement which is currently happening in China has been going on since 1949 (63 years and counting). What’s the difference? Put simply the difference is wineskins. The way of doing church which we now think of as standard practice, (congregational meetings in dedicated buildings with a hierarchical leadership structure) is a hostile environment to the Spirit’s powerful work. For specific details of this read the chapters The Crumbling of a Viral Jesus Movement and The History of Partial Viral Jesus Movements in Viral Jesus. How could the early church sustain a viral movement for nearly 300 years? They didn’t have our current church practice. When it finally became formalized the viral movement stopped. How can our Chinese brethren sustain their movement of the Sprit for over 60 years? They don’t follow standard church practice. You can read about that in Thank You Chairman Mao. Following are some of the more specific reasons that our more traditional practices kill viral Jesus movements.

Human Control

The Church was specifically designed to function with Jesus as Lord and his servants to listen to His specific instructions because of the new covenant. In the new covenant Jesus the Lord gives us specific directions to our hearts and minds (Heb. 8:10). Have you ever seen footage of a SWAT team entering a house to make an arrest? It is confusing and chaotic. One guy is yelling POLICE! Another is commanding, “PUT UP YOUR HANDS!” The next is screaming, “GET ON THE GROUND!” Another is saying, “DON’T MOVE YOUR HANDS!” All the while there are flash bang grenades going off. Chaos! That’s what we have now in the Church, thousands of human leaders “leading.” There is so much human noise it becomes difficult to hear the still small voice of the Lord speaking into our hearts and minds. This human domination can also manifest itself in a leader, group or denomination trying to control what happens.

Focus on Manifestations or Avoid Them

In my last post Characteristics of a Jesus Movement I mentioned two current tendencies, to bask in the glow of supernatural manifestations or shun them. Both can kill viral Jesus movements. To encounter God’s supernatural power is wonderful. But God gives this for specific reasons, to change our lives towards holiness, to show his power to the world and spread his Gospel. It is not a spiritual drug for us to merely enjoy. When we focus on the manifestation and not the Master we risk losing both. In the opposite direction we have brethren who are so steeped in secular rationalism that they are offended by supernatural manifestations. They seem weird, inappropriate and distasteful. In fact, to many they seem satanic. I give a sound test to see what is from God and what is from the devil in my post Is This God or the Devil? However, both of these fleshly tendencies create a hostile environment for a viral Jesus movement.

Fail to Become Missional

There have been a number of truncated viral movement in the US in the last thirty years. They started out fine, despite the bad wineskins, but they fizzled. What happened? Two things happened in my opinion. First, people were curious about the supernatural manifestations but weren’t serious about God’s plans. In other words, it quickly became human focused instead of God focused (see above). But the second problem was that there was little focus on allowing God’s work to become missional. In my post Characteristics of a Jesus Movement I noted, “true Jesus movements start out attractional and very quickly become missional.” That happened in the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings, the Moravian movement, and the Azusa Street revival. Currently the tendency is to come and observe, come and experience, come and enjoy; but there isn’t a lot of going unto all the world to preach the Gospel. These truncated movements have died or will shortly if they don’t take God’s purposes in mind and follow Him out into the harvest.

  • Do you see any common factors in these fatal behaviors?
  • Why do you think the form of the wineskins makes so much difference?
  • Why do you think Jesus movement die if they don’t become missional?
  • Why does human control (not the same as human participation) truncate viral Jesus movements?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Characteristics of a Jesus Movement

Filed Under: Church History, Evangelism, Meeting Together, Spiritual Life, Viral Christianity by rossrohde — 3 Comments
April 11, 2012

Jesus movements don't just happen.

I’m not particularly fond of the word revival. Partly it is because it means different things to different people. To those of evangelical persuasion it is a reference to a rapid ingathering of souls. For others it speaks of a renewal of holiness and commitment to God among His people. And to many of Charismatic and Pentecostal backgrounds the emphasis is on supernatural manifestations of the Spirit. So which is it? My answer is yes. A real outpouring of God’s Spirit among His people normally has all three of these aspects; it renews and deepens the relationship between God and his people which leads to holy living. It is accompanied by supernatural manifestations; manifestations which can take those who are not accustomed to them by surprise, perhaps even offending them. And, it results in a great harvest of souls. But because the word revival is so abused, I’m going to talk about Jesus movements.

Picking and Choosing

So, is an apple the peal, the fruit or the seeds? The answer is yes. Our problem with Jesus movements is we only want the part that appeals to us and leave out the rest. This dividing the various aspects of Jesus movements, so we can focus on the parts we like, is destructive. That is to say it kills the Jesus movement, or it impedes it in the first place. Is it any wonder that Jesus movements are rare? I want to make a point here. Jesus movements aren’t about us. They involve us. They enrich us. They renew us. But God wants to redeem His world and involve us in the process.

A true Jesus movement has all three of the aspects I’ve mentioned above; God’s people are renewed, God draws people to himself through His people and there are powerful manifestations of spiritual power. These three are deeply interrelated. God can’t bring people to himself if his bride isn’t beautiful. That’s where renewal comes in. Further, like it or not, it is those strange and unusual manifestations of supernatural power that is part of the attraction. Go back and read Acts 2 again. Then read my last post about the 2nd Great Awakening. Yes, the weirdness turns some off (as it did in Act 2), but it attracts others, and it demonstrates God’s power. Frankly, some people come for the show and leave with the King. But true Jesus movements start out attractional and very quickly become missional. If they don’t, they die, which I’ll speak about in the next post.

Sparking a Jesus Movement

But how do Jesus movements start in the first place? They start when God’s people desperately and consistently ask for them. They ask for three things: 1.) to be revived within, 2.) to have an outpouring of the Spirit (which results in supernatural manifestations), and 3.) for an ingathering of souls. Does this sound familiar? As an example think about Acts 2 and its aftermath.

In my last post The 2nd Great Awakening I quoted part of a covenant that James McGready and his friends made with God thorough prayer. I’ll quote the whole thing here and note these three aspects working together.

When we consider the word and promises of a compassionate God to the poor lost family of Adam, we find the strongest encouragement for Christians to pray in faith–to ask in the name of Jesus for the conversion of their fellow-men (3). None ever went to Christ when on earth, with the case of their friends, that were denied, and, although the days of his humiliation are ended, yet, for the encouragement of his people, he has left it on record, that where two or three agree upon earth to ask in prayer, believing, it shall be done. Again, whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. With these promises before us, we feel encouraged to unite our supplications to a prayer-hearing God for the outpouring of his Spirit (2), that his people may be quickened and comforted (1), and that our children, and sinners generally, may be converted (3). Therefore, we bind ourselves to observe the third Saturday of each month, for one year, as a day of fasting and prayer for the conversion of sinners in Logan county, and throughout the world. We also engage to spend one half hour every Saturday evening, beginning at the setting of the sun, and one half hour every Sabbath morning, from the rising of the sun, pleading with God to revive his work (1).

Jesus movements happen when God’s people fervently and consistently pray together for renewal, the salvation of their fellow men and an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. When God answers their prayer, what once was difficult becomes easy. And, God’s purposes for us and through us are fulfilled. I want that. Do you? If we really want it, we need to gather like minded people and begin to pray.

  • Many Christians long for revival. Many even pray for them. If you have, did you ask for all of the aspects of revival? Were you persistent?
  • Which of these three aspects, renewal of God’s people, an outpouring of God’s Spirit and a harvest of souls for God do you think is superfluous?
  • One person asking for revival doesn’t seem to bring a Jesus movement; it takes a gathering of his people; why do you think that is so?
  • Christianity was designed to be in constant revival mode. That’s what we are seeing in China and India today. Why do you think it is so easy to become contented with the status quo?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.